Lawyers have been dealing with easyGroup’s enforcement efforts since the early 2000s. Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, easyGroup’s founder, is notorious for branding others as “brand thieves” and attempting to claim exclusive rights to the word “easy” across industries. easyGroup boasts over a thousand “easy” marks worldwide and has a strict policy of legal action against unauthorised use of its signature orange branding and “easy” prefix. From Easyart and EasyPizza to tech startups and even a Netflix show titled Easy, we’ve seen a parade of threats and lawsuits.
Nevertheless tellingly, easyGroup’s aggressive stance rarely translates into courtroom victory. British judges and tribunals have consistently held that nobody can monopolise the plain word “easy” for all purposes – it’s a simple English word, widely used descriptively in business.
Indeed, easyGroup’s litigation record is one of serial defeat. To pick just a few examples:
- In 2021, easyGroup failed to stop a retailer named Easylife – the High Court rejected the claim, and the company ultimately settled by purchasing the Easylife mark after losing.
- In 2022, easyGroup lost its case against Easy Offices; even on appeal, the courts found no infringement and exposed easyGroup’s lack of genuine use of its mark.
Over at the UKIPO, the story is the same. The UKIPO flatly refused easyGroup’s ambitious attempt to register the word “EASY” by itself (for everything from travel to hotels) because it is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness. In short, whether in opposition proceedings or infringement claims, “easy” on its own isn’t a defensible monopoly – a truth easyGroup has been slow to accept.
easyGroup vs. Premier Inn: What Was at Stake?
Premier Inn, the UK’s largest hotel chain, adopted a new marketing tagline in April 2021: “Rest easy.”. This slogan appeared beneath the familiar Premier Inn name and moon-and-stars logo on signage and ads. It’s a friendly, generic phrase – effectively telling customers to relax and sleep well at Premier Inn.
easyGroup, however, took issue. By 2023, easyGroup sued Premier Inn for trademark infringement, claiming “Rest easy” unlawfully used its “easy” branding. The claims were made under both section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark) and section 10(3) (taking unfair advantage of a mark with a reputation).
The trademarks that easyGroup relied on were not limited to the term “EASY” in a general sense. They leaned on two main registrations:
- the word mark EASYHOTEL registered since 2000 for hotel services; and
- a stylised “easy” logo (orange background, lowercase white “easy”) registered in 2019 for accommodation and hotel services.
In other words, easyGroup argued that Premier Inn’s “Rest easy” slogan was confusingly similar to “easyHotel” or the easyGroup logo, or that it took unfair advantage of their reputation.
To bolster its case, easyGroup also acquired a trademarkfor “REST EASY APARTMENTS” from a small company in early 2024 and tacked on a further claim using that mark. Tellingly, the former owner had never accused Premier Inn of infringement – only after selling the mark to easyGroup did it become a weapon in litigation.
Courtroom Showdown: Why easyGroup Lost (Again)
1. No Likelihood of Confusion
On the section 10(2) claim, the court ruled that consumers would not confuse “Rest easy” with easyGroup’s marks. “Rest easy” was always presented alongside Premier Inn’s branding – its purple colour scheme, moon logo, and name. It was used as a tagline, not as an indication of origin. The court found minimal visual and conceptual similarity between “Rest easy” and “easyHotel” or the “easy” logo.
2. No Link in Consumers’ Minds
For section 10(3) (unfair advantage/detriment), easyGroup needed to show that “Rest easy” evoked a mental link to easyGroup’s marks in consumers’ minds. It couldn’t. Premier Inn produced powerful evidence: across millions of customer surveys and reviews, not a single guest associated “Rest easy” with easyGroup.
3. Weak Distinctiveness of “easy”
The court noted that “easy” is descriptive in the hotel context, suggesting a straightforward or effortless stay. easyHotel, a relatively small chain, lacks the broad recognition of Premier Inn. Without strong distinctiveness, easyGroup’s claims were inherently fragile.
4. No Harm, No Free Ride
Since no confusion existed, the court found no evidence of harm to easyGroup’s reputation or unfair benefit to Premier Inn. The court dismissed easyGroup’s invalidity claims against Premier Inn’s “Rest easy” mark too, as these depended on the failed infringement claims.
Critical Reflections: The Futility of easyGroup’s Strategy
This judgement highlights what we’ve long known: trying to corner the market on a common word like “easy” is tricky. Trademarklaw protects brands, but it doesn’t grant monopolies over ordinary language. The High Court reiterated a principle judges and tribunals have repeated for years: descriptive terms enjoy narrow protection at best.
easyGroup’s obsession with controlling the term “easy” has even led to tactics such as purchasing other companies’ trademarks solely for the purpose of suing them. The Premier Inn case shows that such strategies will fail in court unless there is clear evidence of confusion or consumer harm.
Conclusion: “Easy” Does Not Equal Exclusive
easyGroup v Premier Inn reaffirms a simple truth: you cannot monopolise common words without solid consumer recognition. Premier Inn’s victory sends a clear message that even well-known brands must respect the limits of trademarkprotection.
Will easyGroup finally find peace and reconsider its strategy? Time will tell. However, the law remains unwavering: everyone has the right to use basic English words.
michael.coyle@lawdit.co.uk
